So let's talk about scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is when the majority of scientists in a given field, agree on what explains a natural phenomena the best and disagreement is limited. Scientific consensus can be changed when new evidence or a new theory comes along, however, when it comes to explaining the diversity of life on Earth, there are no new theories.. Evolution is still the only theory that adequately explains modern species and the fossil record. Intelligent Design/Creationism and alien seeding have both been investigated and have been found lacking in evidence. So if you think evolution is wrong, you need to come up with a new theory to replace it. To try and hold on to a outdated, disproved theory is just holding back scientific progress. As for taking the "lazy way out", unless you have personally tried to duplicate an experiment or observation that shows evolution and found it to be wrong, then published the results in a peer reviewed journal, you do not get to say that I am taking the "lazy way out". I have taken several college courses in biology and I constantly read about the subjects of biology and evolution so I have done my homework. And finally, as for your belief that my statement is full of absurdity and bigotry, all I can say is that I couldn't give less ****s if I tried.
I can't even get posters to make a premise, that can be examined & analyzed. I just posted some predictions for ID, as i did for the ToE or universal descendancy. Perhaps i will begin to address those things, by myself.. just seems a bit strange in a public forum dedicated to discussion... But i will begin, soon, to address the evidence, & see how it fits in the different models. If you have anything positive to contribute, it would be welcome.
So you assert, without evidence. You can make assertions, but this is about evidencing your beliefs, not merely declaring them. I have just posted the models, & NO EVIDENCE has been presented for either model. We are only in the examination & prediction stage. For you to jump ahead with declarative conclusions is most unscientific. THAT is the absurdity & religious bigotry i was talking about. You merely assert & decree your beliefs, as if they were Absolute Truth, but you have made no arguments, provided no evidence, & admitted that you don't really have any, you just believe what others have told you. I find that a very unscientific mindset. So if you don't want to discuss the evidence for beliefs in origins, why come here & belittle those you disagree with?
You are the one claiming this is a scientific thread. If you want to bring special creation into it, you need to provide scientific evidence for a creator.
The problem of novelties gets wrapped up in the general problem of how we deal with things we don't know. Over time, careful examination and the finding of new information has found many "novelties" to have come from evolutionary processes. The problem comes in when logic degrades to "I don't know how THAT happened, so it MUST be supernatural!!" Science literally can't do that. Science has no way of testing the supernatural. Plus, science insists that when we don't know something we say "I don't know". If you now want to describe a mechanism that is neither creationism nor TOE, please go for it.
I'm sure you can find people who fit your accusation in the last paragraph. There is another problem, though. Today in America, science is denigrated by religion on a constant basis. I think the root comes from issues such as ToE and cosmology, where there is a religious view that is not compatible with scientific observation. The result is that science is seen in a negative light and is excluded from public policy decision making even when the topic is fundamentally scientific. This is impacting decisions we as a country make at all levels. It's important that we ALL object to that, regardless of whether an improvement on the ToE can be found.
I think you just misunderstood the division. Ponderings outside of science are done all the time. For example, "string theory" can not be tested - we just don't have the equipment that could do that. So, it is outside of scientific method. But, it isn't discouraged. Maybe such ideas will contribute to scientific progress one day. Maybe they will guide where physicists explore. The recent success with Higgs fields is a terrific example. In that case, scientists built the largest, most complex machine ever built by humans in order to test ideas that pure thinkers such as Higgs had come up with. Those tests found that Higgs was right, thus bringing into experimental science ideas that could not be tested. Science is constantly working on ways to bring ideas from outside of science into the realm of science, to figure out how to test ideas. Where those ideas come from is NOT an issue.
It absolutely does promote fake science. There isn't any question about that. It looks "sciency", but that doesn't make it science. The purported link between vaccinations and autism has been completely debunked, the co-authors with Wakefield disavowed their involvement, the Lancet retracted the fake study and Wakefield, the crook, had his medical credentials revoked. But, just back up and think about it - if there were such a link, the massive vaccination programs throughout the US and the world would have caused a huge spike in autism. Such a spike has not happened.
That's not my point. My point is that the populist pro-evolutionists act as if any criticism of evolution means the creationists win, and so they tolerate no critical thought at all. If you question evolution, then you are automatically excommunicated and considered a heretic who supports creationism (as we see in this thread, and all these "evolution" threads). Evolution is the best and only scientific explanation people have come up, that does not mean it is perfect and answers all questions, it does not mean it is even correct. It just means its all there is - at the moment. Just as Newtonian physics was considered all encompassing but then was found to be lacking and eventually expanded (actually replaced), the same can and likely happen with the theory of evolution.
You want evidence? How about the hundreds if not thousands of books, articles and papers in support of evolution? Not that you would believe any of it. As I have said countless times, I'm not a biologist so I'm not going to debate the science as I don't feel that I have adequate education for the task. And I'm not not belittling those I disagree with, I'm belittling those who disagree with 150+ years of scientific evidence by using the same tired arguments that real biologists have disproved many, many times before.
If you think that a documentary has more authority about medicine than scientific studies you are ill informed.
Yep, so we've all been told and thoroughly convinced for years on end. Best suspend disbelief until you've seen it.
You obviously haven't seen it either. I know all about Wakefield. Heard it a million times and believe it. He's no angel, no question. Watch it anyway.
Sorry, but I could care less about some movie telling me what I should think. If you want to get my attention, give me links to the studies in question. Also, if you are serious about this, we should start a new thread as not to derail this one (more than it already is).
Of course I'm serious about it and all I've suggested is watching a film for christsakes. No need to start a topic on something apparently only I've witnessed. The point remains quite topical, imo. Mainstream science is subject to corporate corruption like everything else. One can't simply wish it all away by appealing to scientific ideology. I think it wise to put lots of faith in scientists, but check that with a constant awareness that there's money involved in all of it. Therefore, at any given time, any part of it may be vastly the product of cover up and corruption. Our civic duty to be vigilant doesn't exclude science. eta, this is U.S. data from the Wiki on autism (someone asserted that there's been no spike or something): When you read the details, all that's really offered by way of explanation, again and again, is increased awareness. Okay, so what other diagnosis can you point to that's analogous? Watch the film.
That isn't a spike. And, there isn't any evidence that the growth in reported cases has ANYTHING to do with vaccinations. As your own source points out, detection of autisim has improved greatly. You suggest watching out for charlatans that are trying to cash in rather than tell the truth. But, this movie IS made by charlatans who ARE trying to cash in - even though they have been discredited over and over again. What's up? These charlatans are cashing in on their movie full of lies that actually damages the health of Americans. Why would you pump that?
You do realize that the definition of autism has broadened since 1996 so that more people are now included in the diagnosis that would not have been included earlier? However, let me tell you this. My son is on the Autism spectrum and even if there was definite proof that his vaccines caused his autism, I would do again in a heartbeat, because autism is infinitely better than death.
What about a third, perhaps more temporal based origin? What is both, as OP says, part evolution, part intelligent design. What if mankind is always destined to travel back in time to populate and manipulate our genome. Now when thinking 4th dimensional, you have to factor in variances, and ALTERNATE timelines and such. Then to presume we're living on the 'correct/desired' timeline is wrong and perhaps, we exist on a alternate timeline to 'timeline prime' and are just a by product. For us, there is no more miracles, no more divine intervention, just technology.
Sorry to hear that about your son. My daughters were vaccinated and have shown no signs of autism, thank goodness. The actual problem appeared to be vaccinating too soon rather than not at all. You should watch the film. Haven't heard of anyone dying yet as a result.
